On 31/1/23 09:47, Tom Worthington wrote: > More seriously, AI is already routinely used for checking for plagiarism in > student assignments, and analysis of medical scans. Provided the AI has been > tested, is at least as good as a human, and there is human oversight, I don't > have a problem.
Neither do I as long as there's am appropriately qualified & responsible human, the Head of Department or a Medical Specialist in the cases you mention, to check the output of the AI system. Turn-it-in probably uses this technology, but any cases I've seen have been thoroughly reviewed in a meeting between the relevant HoD and Tutor before approaching the student. And medical use of AI should always be thoroughly & critically reviewed by a Specialist doctor, regardless of whether the results are positive or negative. > But we have to be careful where the AI encodes biases hidden in human > decision making, or masks deliberate discrimination under a cloak of > impartial tech. Not just careful, an appropriately responsible human should _always_ have the last word. And such decision systems should be kept right out of the Courts. _David Lochrin_ _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
